Opinion
No. 16-71329
05-16-2019
JOSE RAMIRO-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A093-161-151 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 14, 2019 Pasadena, California Before: LIPEZ, WARDLAW, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Kermit V. Lipez, United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit, sitting by designation.
Jose Ramiro-Ramirez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissing his appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge ("IJ") denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in deeming Ramiro's application abandoned. When Ramiro originally proffered an incomplete application, the IJ rejected it but extended the filing deadline. Ramiro did not file any application by that deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c); cf. Casares-Castellon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). And, he does not argue that the IJ abused his discretion in rejecting the initial application.
2. Ramiro was not denied due process. His counsel was notified about the extended application deadline, and the failure to meet that deadline therefore does not implicate due process, absent ineffective assistance of counsel. See Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1014-15 (9th Cir. 2005). Whether Ramiro received effective assistance was not before the BIA and is not at issue in this petition for review. See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that "in the vast majority of cases," the BIA considers ineffective assistance in a motion to reopen).
PETITION DENIED.